SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Trump administration has waived part of the punishment for five megabanks whose affiliates were convicted and fined for manipulating global interest rates. One of the Trump administration waivers was granted to Deutsche Bank — which is owed at least $130 million by President Donald Trump and his business empire, and has also been fined for its role in a Russian money laundering scheme.
The waivers were issued in a little-noticed announcement published in the Federal Register during the Christmas holiday week. They come less than two years after then-candidate Trump promised “I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder.”
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Trump Administration Waives Punishment for Convicted Banks
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 61 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday January 11 2018, @02:28AM (42 children)
I'm ready to go all frothing-at-the-mouth, but thought I'd just check first: Is there a history of former presidents issuing these sorts of waivers?
Just want to check whether my frothing-at-the-mouth should be directed at Presidents in general, or Trump in particular.
(Score: 5, Informative) by arslan on Thursday January 11 2018, @02:34AM (21 children)
This is an extension of Obama given those banks a 1 year waiver. A few of those have now been extended to 5 year, a few to 3 year.
Besides that, this is a waiver on the savings/asset management part of those banks, not the securitize the hell out of everything under the sun and sell it as kool-aid part that caused the whole GFC bit and what we typically mean when we say "wall street".
If my retire fund is at stake, i'd want it managed by the best, even if they're crooked and aggressive, as long as the returns are there, until the playing field is leveled, then we can talk ethics. So yea I'm be pretty happy for it to remain with those vampires and this waiver is actually a good thing.
Of course all of those are barely mentioned and more than half of the article segues into Trump is evil, conflict of interest, blah blah blah.
(Score: 5, Touché) by bob_super on Thursday January 11 2018, @02:45AM (4 children)
"Who cares how fucked up this all is, as long as I get my cut."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Thursday January 11 2018, @08:57AM
Also, this attitude is stupid. The "crooked" and "aggressive" managers perform bad to worst and totally impassive index fonds beat them all.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday January 11 2018, @03:53PM (1 child)
The shorter, snappier version is "Fuck You Got Mine."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 11 2018, @05:21PM
Thought about it, but it sounded like this case was ongoing, so "got mine" didn't quite fit.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday January 12 2018, @02:09AM
I'm reminded of the movie Hancock and the prison scene. I'm so frothing pissed that the elites get away with this shit, that I wan't to literally take Orange Anus' head and stick it up Obama's ass, and then stick Obama's head up his ass.
Not new, and entirely a bipartisan affair of fucking over the American people.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:55AM (14 children)
Thanks for adding more context to the discussion.
However, I think it's fair to ask whether Obama had financial ties to any of the banks that got waivers. If he did, then Trump's conflict of interest looks no less or more unethical than that of Obama. But if Obama didn't have any ties to those banks, then I think the conflict of interest point is still significant. At the very least, Trump should have shifted his financial assets or liabilities elsewhere before extending the waiver.
I'm very politically liberal (in the American sense of the word), but the problem with shouting every time the president does anything is that people - even people on your own side - stop paying attention. If they hadn't said a damn thing about the Russia probe until the conclusions were announced, maybe they could have gotten enough voter support to start an impeachment. If they hadn't said a damn thing about his mental stability until he started playing with nuclear fire by trading teenage insults with Kim Jong-un, maybe they could have gotten enough voter support to start some kind of action over his sanity. Instead it's been Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia non-stop since before he took office to today and crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy since three weeks into his election campaign, and the voters are numb to it all.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @05:37PM
No... Obama did not have any outstanding loans or financial interests in foreign banks. His assets were primarily invested in vanilla US treasury bonds during his presidency (and since afaik). It used to be a given that US presidents had no conflicting financial interests.
This is why people started the constant whining even before Trump took office. Anyone familiar with the system could see these problems coming as soon as he refused to release his tax returns or put his assets in a blind trust. The time to listen to the experts has long passed. The only one who can hold Trump to anything at this point is a partisan Congress.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:00PM (12 children)
Well said. What's more, the Russia meme the Democrats have been brandishing is particularly ill-fitting. They were always softer on the Russians, in Soviet times, and afterward. So for them to suddenly turn around and paint the Russians as an existential threat to American democracy when they spent 60 years trying to understand them and feel their pain rings totally false. Of course I stated that in florid terms, but I do believe it's a big part of why that whole angle hasn't worked for them rhetorically; no one believes them, not even they.
Stepping back and looking at the last two years from the 10,000 foot level, it's remarkable how tone deaf the Masters of the Universe have been. They have been throwing everything plus the kitchen sink at Donald Trump as the avatar of a populist backlash, and none of it has worked. The more they throw, the shriller they get, the less they are believed. They failed to stop his bid for the Republican nomination, by extravagantly funding more than a dozen opponents. They failed to stop him in the general election despite putting the fix in on every level they controlled.
On the flip side, they're still shoveling our cash into their pockets. The tax bill and now this bank waiver prove their license to steal remains, undiminished. I am happy the Media and Hollywood have been kicked hard in the nuts, but Wall Street and the Masters of the Universe need to be kicked in the nuts until they don't have crotches anymore.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:39PM (6 children)
Imagine that, invading a neighboring country and committing cyber attacks on our political process has soured a few people on Russia!
It used to be that we changed our opinions based on new evidence/actions...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:53PM (5 children)
you've been brainwashed into a political weapon.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 11 2018, @07:22PM (4 children)
Nope, I just have a friend from Ukraine.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @08:30PM (3 children)
Ukrainians have a real bone to pick with the Russians. We don't. And for the Democrats to suddenly mount a Red Scare is, well, goofy. Imagine the Republican leadership suddenly declaring we should all become vegans, and to then beat the Democrats about the ears for eating meat. Nobody would take them seriously, believing it to be an elaborate practical joke.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 11 2018, @08:32PM (1 child)
When a friend of yours mentions she's worried about her family because Russia just invader her hometown it tends to put one off a bit.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @08:59PM
Sure. It's understandable.
It's also true that because a country is mean to somebody else that doesn't mean that we will or should treat them as bad guys for that reason. If we did, no country would have any friends for long. Should we stop being friends with Australia because of their appalling treatment of the Aborigines? If you were an Aborigine or had a friend who was, you'd probably say yes, but don't be surprised if the country as a whole didn't go along with you.
It also doesn't mean that country is bad or unredeemable. Turkey has been total bastards to the Kurds, and to the Armenians. But I gotta tell you, in my travels there I'd have to say in total honesty that between them it's a three-way tie for the nicest, gentlest, kindest people I have ever met in all my years. Seriously, they out-nice the Canadians, and that's near impossible.
In short, the way the Russians have been behaving toward the Ukrainians does not mean they are suddenly the existential threat to American democracy (my money for that title, as always, would be on the Deep State/1%/lizard people and their lackeys in the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Wall Street).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:13PM
You're in need of a crash course on geopolitics that a comment section can't really provide. The US (primarily) pushed for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament under the Budapest Memorandum to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1994. One of the provisions of that agreement was that UN security council was to provide aid in the event that Ukraine's borders were threatened.
The US was diplomatically obligated to come to Ukraine's aid as soon as Russia started violating their sovereignty. Between all the confusion at the time and fear of Russia, we didn't. This avoided conflict in the short-term, but it's having a variety of ripple effects on our treaties and foreign relations that are all extremely troubling. The situation is startlingly reminiscent of various appeasement policies at the beginning of WWII.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:39PM (2 children)
Weird how openly invading a country supposedly protected under the non-proliferation treaty and mounting massive state-funded cyber campaigns against governments in most of the western world would turn Democrats against you?
Must be a Hollywood conspiracy.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @08:47PM (1 child)
Yet Obama and the Media were not screaming, "OMG! OMG! The Russians are coming!!!" when they summarily annexed the Crimea and went after Georgia or went into Ukraine.
As for meddling in the elections of other countries, the Russians certainly believed the US and Europe meddled in Ukraine's in order to further isolate Russia. We know, thanks to Snowden, that the NSA and CIA do things like that, and have departments dedicated to them. We know for a fact, thanks to the Monaco Papers, that American companies and the government actively undermine democratic governments in Africa and other places. So whether or not the US and Europe did use those capabilities to meddle in Ukraine's elections, the Russians believe they did and it would not be surprising if they tried to answer in kind.
Countries try to meddle in other countries' internal affairs all the time.
But let's say for the sake of argument that we should get our panties in a bunch because of it, and go on the warpath against foreign governments that have tried to influence and undermine American democracy. If so, then pray tell me why we have not nuked Israel until it glows, because they have been doing exactly that, very effectively, for decades through its agents, its lobby AIPAC--the third most powerful lobby in DC after the AARP and the NRA--, and its surrogates in the American Jewish and the evangelical Christian communities? They have skewed policy and legislation, huge issues, for all that time and have gotten us into wars that cost American lives over it.
I mean, if you're gonna get upset about this kind of issue, you gotta take Israel down first.
Of course, that's if, and only if, there is anything real behind these objections at all instead of the cynical manipulations by the lizard people who want all of us fighting each other instead of them...
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:30PM
They were screaming that, actually. Many folks like yourself were either not listening or somehow convinced by Putin's flimsy public denials (kinda like his public denials of active cyber campaigns).
We do not know, "thanks to Snowden", that the NSA and CIA engage in similar operations. In fact, Snowden was very careful not to release information regarding any operations (because that could put agents in danger). He only released information on capabilities. It wasn't really surprising to anyone in cyber security that the US (like every other major power) has programs dedicated to both domestic and foreign cyber capabilities. We have no evidence that they're being used aggressively. If they were, we'd probably have a Russian equivalent to the DNI report on “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”. We don't.
There's a big difference between state funded hacking into a wide range of political and voting institutions and... lobbying.
(Score: 1) by bobthecimmerian on Friday January 12 2018, @12:23PM (1 child)
Democrats were softeron Russia during Soviet times? What kind of revisionist history is that? Did JFK back off during the Cuban missile crisis? Did Eisenhower announce the US was going to beat the Soviet Union to the moon and push Congress to fund it? Did Lyndon Johnson pull troops out of Europe and start a nuclear disarmament? (Republican) Nixon was the one who pulled us out of Vietnam, not a Democrat - granted that was a conflict with North Vietnamese and Chinese communists, not USSR communists.
I grant that Obama screwed up with respect to Russia by not doing enough to halt the invasion of Crimea or Ukraine. But the rest of your assertion is flat false.
And the idea that the Democrats funded Trump's opponents is absurd - any evidence? They would have kept every cent they had to give to their crown princess, Hillary. Again, I'm strongly liberal... which means I'm only very loosely allied with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid. They're liberal compared to Republicans for things like abortion rights, gay rights, and equal rights for people that aren't white men. But on economic policy, privacy, regulation of the market, etc... there's not much difference. I don't want to derail the discussion further, but the fact that nobody got prosecuted for mortgage-backed securities fraud is all the evidence you need that Wall Street owned Obama only a hair less than it owns Trump.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 12 2018, @04:58PM
Nixon did what he did for detente with China to isolate Russia. Reagan was responsible for the massive military buildup that pushed the Soviet Union past the breaking point. They were harder on Russia than the Democrats.
The idea that the Democrats funded Trump's opponents is absurd, because that is not what I said. I said the Masters of the Universe funded Trump's opponents. You might know them by one of their other monikers like the "1%" or "lizard people" or "Deep State." They are the very few who control the levers of power in our society. For them, there is no "liberal vs. conservative" or "Democrat vs. Republican" or "American vs. Russian." They identify with their counterparts everywhere around the world, not with their supposed countrymen. They patronize the same resorts, they attend the same parties, they go to the same universities. They are the ones who funded Trump's primary opponents, just like they funded Hillary's campaign. They're the ones who control the Congressmen who just voted to give them billions more of our dollars.
Maybe you don't agree that the 1% are real and that they don't collude to undermine our democracy every day. If that's the case, if the evidence doesn't convince you, if you thought the Occupy Wall Street people were all hapless, delusional fools, then that's fine and we can stop right here.
If you do think the 1% are real and do constitute an existential threat to democracy, then I invite you to consider that beneath the mean words and harsh sentiments Trump is part of a backlash against what the 1% have been doing. When Occupy was shut down I did say that it was going to be the last time the 1% were politely asked to mend the error of their ways, and it looks like that was right. Now they're being rudely told to mend the error of their ways.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @03:27PM
"If my retire fund is at stake, i'd want it managed by the best, even if they're crooked and aggressive, as long as the returns are there, until the playing field is leveled, then we can talk ethics."
And such is the history of the world. Slavery was fine when we really needed the labour. Mistreating workers was fine when we had a glut of workers. We can always say "oh, we were so wrong and we won't do it again" at such time when it's convenient to do so. It takes real strength to not do something when you really, really need to, not after the need is satisfied.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday January 11 2018, @02:37AM (13 children)
Whether or not there is history, there is a clear conflict of interest here.
Deutsche Bank is the bank that was laundering money for the Russian oligarchs at the same time it was lending money to Trump when no other banks would. Nothing suspicious there.
#DrainingTheSwamp!
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 5, Insightful) by KiloByte on Thursday January 11 2018, @03:32AM (6 children)
So you say Obama spared those poor bankers because of his good heart? The link was just a bit less direct.
Here's a law we need so badly:
Poland, Dz.U. 1921 nr.30 poz.177 (also Dz.U. 1920 nr.11 poz.61): Art.2: An official, guilty of accepting a gift or another material benefit, or a promise thereof, [in matters relevant to duties], shall be punished by death by shooting.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday January 11 2018, @08:52AM (4 children)
Would that include bribe laundering (aka, being paid millions for short speeches)?
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:11AM (2 children)
Yeah, that's too obvious a trick. Likewise campaign donations (an outright monetary gain) or no-show-massive-salary employment after the term ends (promise).
Not surprisingly, politicians won't enact this particular law, and if forced to, would leave every conceivable loophole open. But it can happen, like it did in Poland less than a hundred years ago with the law I quoted — with a literal death penalty. A murder affects a single person or at most their relatives/friends, a crooked official affects millions.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:03PM (1 child)
How I wish we had that law. The Constitution for the Second American Republic must include it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @07:45PM
Either under the definition of treason, or under a federal law involving providing material aid or services to a (hostile or not) foreign regime.
Having said that, America has been so long having different interpretations of laws for the 'politically connected/public figureheads' than they have for the 'common man' that I am unsure it matters anymore except in situations where the former cateogory is making an example to keep the attention of the latter category from their other longrunning misdeeds.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:05PM
Don't forget donations to Presidential libraries and post-administration charities.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:45PM
Be crooked individual who wants to abuse power for profit.
Think hard.
Dig up some cases and come up with moralizing grandstand to abolish death penalty for serious crimes.
Argue that if we don't punish serious crimes with death, why punish things that are "less" serious, such as white-collar crimes.
Reduce punishment for scumbaggery to a slap on the wrist with public support.
????
Profit.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday January 11 2018, @03:37AM (4 children)
So no other American politician had had to make policies that affect companies that has dealings with their private ventures? This kind of stuff is not uncommon.
He's not cherry picking DB for the waiver. Its an extension of an existing waiver from a former president. You can of course draw all sorts of conclusions and conspiracy theories from it - but in the ends it is just speculation and poo flinging.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Thursday January 11 2018, @03:44AM (1 child)
Most recent presidents have chosen to put their holdings into a blind trust, in order to avoid this exact problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:51PM
Does tax law allow for assets to be put into a blind trust without causing a tax event?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @05:52AM
Possibly. It is also illegal, immoral, and possibly fattening. And for a sitting Precedent, unconstitutional. See: Emoluments Clause.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:42PM
You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm Before I Got To Be President [theonion.com] -- Jimmy Carter
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:55PM
if you're not hiding some of your financial activities it just means you're a skank.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 11 2018, @02:40AM (4 children)
It's the rich taking care of the rich, no matter how you slice and dice it. These same SOB's will pounce on an old woman's delinquent mortgage, but cut deals with each other.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday January 11 2018, @03:41AM (3 children)
Don't we all know it. In the good old days we'd be sharpening our pitchforks, now we just whinge on the internet or stare at pictures of celebrity pets...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:11AM (2 children)
Trump has a pet? Oh, you mean Steve Miller!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:07PM (1 child)
Yeah, it was Bannon for a while, but the fat bastard kept pissing all over the carpet and going outside the litterbox...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:08PM
He should have had the discipline to refrain from posting on Twitter while drunk. Or he should have done as my brother-in-law, who has constructed incredibly elaborate mechanisms in his life to be able to spend as much of it stoned out of his mind as possible without getting arrested or fired.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:42PM
Just want to check whether my frothing-at-the-mouth should be directed at Presidents in general, or Trump in particular.
Trump campaigned on doing the exact opposite of this.